click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20130416
20130424
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4
on this. so now we are bringing this to the public. we will find a time for secretary napolitano to come before the committee. i hope this will give the public an opportunity to learn about it. unlessly every one of us we say we don't know how to read, everyone of us will have plenty of time to analyze this bill before we actually start marking it up in may. just a member, immigration has been an ongoing source of renewal of our spirit and creativity -- remember, immigration has been an ongoing source of renewal of ours are it and creativity. spirit and creativity. innovation for our companies. our nation continues to benefit from immigrants. we need to uphold the fundamental values of family and hard or can. -- work. foreign agricultural workers ofport vermont growers, many whom move into the fabric of vermont's agricultural community. of us.stem affects all now is our time to fix it. act to liberally. but we have to act. we can talk about it, but eventually we have to vote. millions of people are depending on us. editor grassley -- senator grassley? >> we feel that the secretary is doi
've been working with secretary napolitano and find the way to provide jammers to local police. as far as those with detonators, there is no, other than having more dogs, more surveillance and that appears to what happened here. if it was a detonator, only way to stop there, if there were more police dogs constantly screening the area and, again, we, you know, when there is after-action report from the boston police department we'll have a better idea what happened, how those ieds got there. bill: yeah. understood. did you say jammers? i want to be clear on that, is that the word you used? >> jammers. yeah, jammers can be used against remote controls. bill: what would they do? >> they would prevent an ied going off. it would prevent the person trying to set it off by remote control, it would prevent that from happening. we used them in afghanistan. we used them in iriraq. bill: yeah, i asked that because apparently cell phone service and e-mail service was down several hours month afternoon. were jammers used in the boston after the attack it is. >> i'm not sure. could have been cell p
security secretary janet napolitano. >> based on the evidence at this point, is there any difference between sandy hook and boston, other than the choice of weapons? in terms of intent for death and destruction and injury, no. methodology, guess. we don't know the motivation certainly behind boston. we don't know whether was domestic, international -- >> or if it was identical to the motivation in sandy hook. >> we just don't know the answer. i think it is impossible for me to sit at the table today and say they are identical, except in the effect of impact. >> as i look at the evidence that is available, you have mass destruction and violence and andghter of innocents, neither case do we note motive. the irony is, we are so quick to call boston terror, why are we not calling the man with a high- capacity assault weapon and a high-capacity magazine, why are we not calling him a terrorist? >> i don't know the answer to that question. host: bill braniff, do you have a response to that exchange? ofst: the definition terrorism is an often repeated question. it comes up and all kinds of c
rights. here to explain is fox news judge andrew napolitano. he was finally read his miranda rights. you have to do that within 48 hours? >> theoretically miranda rights should be read immediately as soon as the person is in custody, before you ask him any questions. we don't know exactly what's happened, we'll find out, but the government told us it did not read him his miranda rights, interrogated him for intelligence, not law enforcement purposes. this is highly controversial and could affect the government's case. but at some point in that interrogation which only lasted a few hours, which apparently consisted of him writing answers because he can't speak due to the injury to his throat. at some point in that interrogation, agents, professional interrogators decided we're not going to get anywhere or we've already learned everything we can learn from him. they also have on their shoulder, breathing down their neck, so to speak, a federal rule of procedure which requires he be charged with something within 48 hours. otherwise they have to let him go. they did charge him with this comp
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4